See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296700974

ASSESSMENT OF PLUVIATION METHOD OF

SAND BED PREPARATION BY MINIATURE CONE
PENETRATION

Conference Paper · December 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 205

3 authors:

Vinil Kumar Gade Vinay Bhushan Chauhan

Indian Institute of Technology Bombay Indian Institute of Technology Bombay
9 PUBLICATIONS 11 CITATIONS 18 PUBLICATIONS 14 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Dasaka Murty
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay
50 PUBLICATIONS 187 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Part of sponsored research project sanctioned by the Ministry of Earth Sciences, Govertment of India
View project

Behavior of Rigid Retaining wall with Relief shelves View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vinay Bhushan Chauhan on 04 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 50th INDIAN GEOTECHNICAL CONFERENCE

50th
IGC
17th – 19th DECEMBER 2015, Pune, Maharashtra, India
Venue: College of Engineering (Estd. 1854), Pune, India

ASSESSMENT OF PLUVIATION METHOD OF SAND BED PREPARATION BY

MINIATURE CONE PENETRATION

Gade, V. K.1 Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay, vinilg@iitb.ac.in
Chauhan, V. B.2 Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay, 114040012@iitb.ac.in
Dasaka, S. M.3 Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay, dasaka@civil.iitb.ac.in

ABSTRACT: Reliability of experimental results depends on several factors, and sample preparation is one of the
important phases of any experimental investigation in the laboratory. Preparation of consistent samples is a
prerequisite to check the repeatability of test results of an experiment, and often samples need to be tested to verify
whether the preparation technique would produce consistent soil samples. Cohesionless soil specimens of varying
sizes are prepared widely by air pluviation method in the laboratory to carryout performance studies on retaining
wall, shallow and deep foundations, slopes, etc. The objective of the present study is to assess the uniformity and
repeatability of sand specimens prepared using a recently developed mechanized travelling pluviator (MTP). MTP
is a simple device to prepare large size specimens of cohesionless soils by air pluviation method. The MTP
essentially consists of an hopper attached to a chain pulley operated on frictionless wheels, orifice plate for varying
deposition intensity, combination of flexible and rigid tubes (hoses) for smooth passage of material by gravity, and
a set of diffuser sieves to maintain uniformity of pluviated sand bed. The hopper is placed on a set of guiding rails,
which allow the hopper to move 1800 mm freely in one direction. In order to examine the commonly used
techniques of sand bed preparation, sand beds are prepared using three methods viz., MTP with diffuser sieves
(WS), MTP without diffuser sieves (WOS) and tamping method. Indian standard sand (Ennore) of Grade III is
selected for the study, and size of the sand bed is kept as 282 mm × 282 mm × 390 mm (height). These sand beds
are prepared at two quite different relative densities (RD) of 40% and 80%. Cone penetration test is one of the most
widely accepted techniques for assessing the uniformity of laboratory soil beds. Two miniature cones of 1/10th (100
mm2) and 1/15th (66.6 mm2) of standard cone area with apex angle 60° are used for carrying out penetration tests on
the sand beds. The cone is connected to the Universal Testing Machine (UTM) through a connecting rod with the
help of a coupling. Cone penetration tests are conducted at a displacement rate of 10 mm/minute. Effect of sample
preparation method on repeatability of sand bed is studied through penetration resistance of CPT for all three
methods of sand bed preparation described earlier. Layered effect is observed in the sand bed samples prepared by
tamping method and quite clear in the loose samples (RD = 40%) than in the dense samples. In case of samples
prepared with WOS and tamping method, part of impact energy of a layer is transferred to the layers below it,
witnessed by the increased cone resistance with depth, compared to the MTP WS method. Based on the present
study, it can be concluded that among all the three methods, MTP WS method produces repeatable sand specimens.

INTRODUCTION analytical models, which are validated using

Laboratory tests conducted on a remoulded sand
sample should able to replicate natural deposits of
sand and the sample preparation method is able to
reproduce identical sample in multiple times [1].
Most of the classical theories of geotechnical
engineering are developed from the experience
gained through field and laboratory tests and
laboratory or field test results. Laboratory
cohesionless samples are widely prepared using the
tamping, vibration or pluviation [2,3]. Sample
preparation method should be able to produce
uniform and repeatable soil specimens of wide
range of densities and various sizes. Pluviation
method is widely used by many researchers due to
Gade, Chauhan and Dasaka

its unique advantages, viz., no particle crushing,
ease in preparation, more consistent samples, ease
in interruption for placing instrumentation or
placing intermittent layer of another soil or a layer
of a geosynthetic material, etc. [2,4,5].
pulley, orifice plates, acrylic rigid tube and diffuser
sieves. Effect of height of fall (HF), orifice
diameter (DI) and number of diffuser sieves on
relative density (RD) of sand specimens is reported
and briefly discussed in [5,16].

LITERATURE REVIEW
Laboratory prepared soil specimens need to be
verified for uniformity and repeatability before
proceeding for model studies in order to assess
degree of variation of test results. Various methods
have been adopted in the past to evaluate the
uniformity of sand specimens prepared in
laboratory, such as miniature cone penetration
testing [6-8], measurement of shear wave velocity
[8], density cans [2,8], chemical impregnation [9],
etc. Calibration chamber and miniature cone
penetration testing techniques are widely using to
verify the uniformity of sand beds.
Miniature cone diameter can be selected based on
two criteria; (i) container dimensions and (ii) sand Fig. 1 Grain size distribution of Grade III sand
gradation. To avoid boundary effects on cone
resistance, various authors recommended wide Table 1 Properties of sand used in the study
range of B/d (B-container width, d- cone diameter) Description Sand
ratios, viz., 20 to 50 [10], 28 [11], 60 [12], 40 [13]; Specific gravity of soil solids
42 [7], 32 [8]. Minimum distance from hard (Gs) 2.65
boundary required to avoid boundary effect on
Mean particle size, D50 (mm) 0.28
cone resistance is 10 to 12d [11,14]. If very small
diameter cones are used, there might be chances of Uniformity coefficient (Cu) 1.42
bending of the cones during the penetration and it
results in erroneous test results. To avoid bending Coefficient of Curvature (Cc) 0.93
effect, Bolton et al. [14] recommended minimum
cone diameter should not less than twenty times the Minimum dry unit weight, 14.29 (ASTM
γdmin (kN/m3) D4254-00)
D50 (D50- mean particle size).
Maximum dry unit weight, 17.33 (MTP)
γdmax (kN/m3)
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
In the present study, Indian standard sand Grade-III Two miniature cones are used in the study, which
is used for preparing specimens. Grain size are 1/10th and 1/15th of standard cone area (1000
distribution curve of Grade-III sand is shown in mm2), viz. 100 mm2 (11.3 mm Ø) and 66.67 mm2
Fig. 1. Some of the physical properties of Grade-III (9.2 mm Ø), respectively. Similar cone sizes were
sand are listed in Table 1. This sand is classified as used by Bolton et al. [14]. Two connecting rods
poorly graded sand (SP) according to USCS (CR) of 10 mm and 8 mm diameters (Ø) are used
system [15]. Sand specimens are prepared using to connect cone to the universal testing machine.
pluviation method by employing mechanized There are four combinations of CPTs used in the
traveling pluviator (MTP) set-up developed by study, viz., C1- using 11.3 mm dia. cone connected
Gade and Dasaka [5]. Schematic view of MTP to 10 mm dia. Connecting rod (CR), C2 - 9.2 mm
pluviation set-up is shown in Fig. 2. MTP mainly dia. cone connected to 10 mm dia. CR, C3- 11.3
consists of a wheeled hopper, rail track, chain mm dia. cone connected to 8 mm dia. CR and C4-
 50th INDIAN GEOTECHNICAL CONFERENCE

50th
IGC
17th – 19th DECEMBER 2015, Pune, Maharashtra, India
Venue: College of Engineering (Estd. 1854), Pune, India

9.2 mm dia. cone connected to 8 mm dia. CR.
Pictorial and schematic view of combinations of
cone assembly are show in Figs. 3 and 4,
respectively. Container of internal dimensions 282
mm × 282 mm × 390 mm is used for preparing the
sand specimens. Universal testing machine is used
for cone penetration testing, at a displacement rate
of 10 mm/min. Moreover, the penetration rate was
observed not affecting the penetration resistance of
sand samples [17]. Pictorial view of cone
penetration set-up is shown in Fig. 5.

Fig. 2 Details of mechanized traveling pluviator assembly (Gade and Dasaka 2015)

densities are chosen for CPT testing, viz., loose

(40%) and dense (80%); these two densities are
chosen as most of the laboratory studies are
conducted in this range.

Fig. 3 Pictorial view of miniature cones 11.3 mm

and 9.2 mm Ø and connecting rods 10 mm and 8
mm Ø

Sand samples are prepared by pluviation method

(with and without sieves) and tamping method, and
the results of the CPT conducted on the above
samples are compared and presented in the Fig. 4 Details of miniature cone penetrometer
following section. Samples prepared at two relative combinations (a) C1, (b) C2, (c) C3 and (d) C4
Gade, Chauhan and Dasaka

In the tamping method, samples are prepared in 50

mm compacted layers, to achieve predefined
relative density (40% or 80%). CBR mould of
volume 3170 cc is used for evaluating the RD of
pluviated specimens. Effect of HF and DI on RD of
sand is shown in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively. The
former figure for the case where diffuser sieves are
employed and the latter without using diffuser
sieves.

Fig. 6 Effect of HF and DI on relative density of

Grade-III sand with using four diffuser sieves

Fig. 7 Effect of HF and DI on relative density of

Fig. 5 Experimental setup for cone penetration Grade-III sand without using diffuser sieves
testing
Table 2 Samples details prepared for CPT testing
From the preliminary studies, it is observed that S. Description Preparation RD Cone
No method (%)
four sieves is optimum number sieves, and further 1 S1 WS 80 C1
increase in number of sieves does not change the
RD of specimens, irrespective of DI. From Figs. 6 2 S2 WS 80 C2
and 7, it can be observed that for achieving higher 3-4 S3&S4 WS 80 C3
densities higher HF and lower DI (small orifice
diameter) are required without using diffuser sieves 5-6 S5&S6 WOS 80 C3
compared to with using diffuser sieves. While 7 S7 Tamping 80 C3
preparing large samples it is difficult to maintain
constant HF for stationary hopper, if diffuser sieves 8-9 S8&S9 WS 40 C3
are not used, as HF reduces with increase in 10 S10 Tamping 40 C3
thickness of sand filled in the container.
Note: WS-with sieves; WOS-without sieves
 50th INDIAN GEOTECHNICAL CONFERENCE
50th
IGC
17th – 19th DECEMBER 2015, Pune, Maharashtra, India
Venue: College of Engineering (Estd. 1854), Pune, India
Details of samples used for CPT testing are listed
in Table 2. Three identical samples are prepared
with MTP using diffuser sieves at 80% RD and
these samples are tested with C1, C2 and C3
combinations. Cone resistance vs. depth of
penetration for these samples is shown in Fig. 8.
From Fig. 8, it is observed that cone resistance
obtained using C3 at depth more than 100 mm is
smaller than that of C1 and C2. The cone
penetration resistance reported here is total
penetration resistance and is the sum of tip
resistance and skin resistance.
Fig. 8 Comparison of cone resistance vs. depth of
penetration for C1, C2 and C3 on Grade-III sample
at RD = 80%
Fig. 9 Comparison of CPT results for Grade-III
sand specimens at RD=80% prepared by tamping,
with and without sieves using MTP (C3)
It is observed from Fig. 8 that the total resistance
increases non-linearly with depth and total cone
resistance for C1>C2>C3. This behaviour can be
possible due to lesser skin resistance in the case of
C3, as the C3 cone is connected to 8 mm Ø CR and
C1 and C2 are connected to 10 mm Ø CR. Based
on the above observations, further CPT tests are
performed using the C3 assembly for assessing the
uniformity and repeatability sand specimens.
Fig. 10 Comparison of CPT results for Grade-III
sand specimens at RD=40% prepared by tamping
and with sieves using MTP (C3)
Sand specimens are prepared at 80% relative
density (RD) by pluviation method using MTP
with and without diffuser sieves and tamping
method and their corresponding cone penetration
resistance vs. penetration depth are shown in Fig.
9. S7 sample prepared by tamping, exhibits change
in cone resistance at the zone of two layers (at
every 50 mm height) due to layering effect as
highlighted in Fig. 9. Sample S5 and S6 are
prepared without using the diffuser sieves, and the
corresponding cone resistance exhibits similar
trend compared to that of sample prepared by
tamping method (S7). In both the cases, cone
resistance deviates from that of sample prepared
with using diffuser sieves, and a wide variation is
observed for the samples prepared by tamping
method. Part of the tamping energy applied to a
layer is transferred to the layers below it, leading to
Gade, Chauhan and Dasaka
higher deviation of cone resistance compared to the
sample prepared using diffuser sieves. Similarly,
for samples prepared without using the diffuser
sieves, sand particles gain energy while falling
down in the container and this energy further
compacts the sand already filled in the container,
which might be attributed to the increased
penetration resistance with depth for samples S5
and S6, as shown in Fig. 9.
For sand samples prepared at 40% RD with MTP
with sieves and tamping method, cone resistance
vs. penetration depth is shown in Fig. 10. Layering
effect is more pronounced in the S10 (prepared by
tamping method) sample than that of S7 (RD=
80%). In brief, samples prepared with the tamping
method exhibit layering effect and layering effect
is more pronounced in the loose sample than dense
samples. Two samples (S3 and S4) prepared at
80% RD using with diffuser sieves and MTP, cone
penetration resistance of both samples are
coincides each other along the penetration depth.
Cone resistance of S3 and S4 samples increases
continuously with depth of penetration as shown in
Fig. 9. Similarly, cone penetration resistance of S8
and S9 samples prepared at 40% RD overlap each
other. From the above observations, it can be
concluded that pluviation using MTP employing
diffuser sieves would provide samples of wide
range of densities without compromising on the
uniform and repeatability.
CONCLUSIONS
From the present study, the following conclusions
are drawn:
 MTP with using the diffuser sieves achieves
wide range of densities at low HF compared to
that without using diffuser sieves.
 The observed cone resistance using C3 cone is
very low compared to C2 and C1 cones,
probably due to the lesser skin resistance
offered in the case of C3.
 MTP without using the diffuser sieves produces
a wide range of relative densities (12 to 94%),
however, the uniformity of sand bed needs to
be compromised, as evident from CPT results.
 Samples prepared with the tamping method
exhibit layering effect and layering effect is
more pronounced in the loose sample than
dense samples.
 From the CPT results, it is observed that wide
range of uniform and repeatable sand samples
can be prepared using MTP pluviation set-up
with diffuser sieves.
REFERENCES
1. Kuerbis, R., and Vaid, Y. P. (1988). “Sand
sample preparation – The slurry deposition
method”, Soils and Foundations, 8(4), 107-
118.
2. Lo Presti, D. C. F., Berardi, R., Pedroni, S., and
Crippa, V. (1993). “A new traveling sand
pluviator to reconstitute specimens of well-
graded silty sands.” Geotechnical Testing
Journal, 16(1), 18-26.
3. ASTM D4254-00 (2006). “Standard Test
Methods for Minimum Index Density and Unit
Weight of Soils and Calculation of Relative
Density.” Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
ASTM Intl., West Conshohocken, PA.
4. Rad, N. S, and Tumay, M. T. (1987). “Factors
Affecting Sand Specimen Preparation by
Raining.” Geotechnical Testing Journal, 10(1),
31-37.
5. Gade, V. K. and Dasaka, S. M. (2015):
“Development of a mechanized traveling
pluviator to prepare reconstituted uniform sand
specimens”, Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, ASCE, DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)MT.
1943-5533.0001396.
6. Fretti, C., Lo Presti, D. C. F., and Pedroni, S.
(1995). “A Pluvial deposition method to
reconstitute well-graded sand specimens.”
Geotechnical Testing Journal, 18(2), 292-298.
7. Hsu, H. H. (1999). “Calibration of cone
penetration test in sand.” Proc., Natl.
Sci.Counc, Republic of China, 23 (5), 579–590.
8. Choi, S.K., Lee M.J., Choo, H., Tumay, M. T.,
and Lee, W. (2010). “Preparation of a Large
Size Granular Specimen Using a Rainer System
with a Porous Plate.” Geotechnical Testing
Journal, 33(1), 1-10.
9. Clayton, C. R. I., Bica, A. V. D., and Moore, S.
R. (1994). “A resin impregnation technique for
determination of the density variations in
 50th INDIAN GEOTECHNICAL CONFERENCE

50th
IGC
17th – 19th DECEMBER 2015, Pune, Maharashtra, India
Venue: College of Engineering (Estd. 1854), Pune, India

completed specimens of dry cohesionless
soils.” Geotechnique, 44(1), 165-173.
10. Been, K., Crooks, J. H. A., Becker, D. E. and
Jefferies, M. G. (1986). “The cone penetration
test in sands: part I, state parameter
interpretation.” Geotechnique, 36(2), 239-249.
11. Phillips, R. and Valsangkar, A. J. (1987). “An
experimental investigation of factors affecting
penetration resistance in granular soils in
centrifuge modelling.” Cambridge University
Engineering Department, Cambridge, UK.
Technical Report CUED/D-Soils TR210.
12. Sweeney, B. P. and Clough, G. W. (1990).
“Design of a large calibration chamber.”
Geotechnical testing journal, 13(1), 36-44.
13. Puppala, A. J., Acar, Y. B. and Tumay, M. M.
(1995). “Cone penetration in very weakly
cemented sand.” Journal of geotechnical
engineering, 121(8), 589-600.
14. Bolton, M. D., Gui, M. W., Garnier, J., Corte,
J. F., Bagge, G., Laue, J., and Renzi, R. (1999).
“Centrifuge Cone Penetration Tests in Sand.”
Geotechnique, 49(4), 543-552.
15. ASTM D2487-11 (2011). “Classification of
soils for engineering purposes (Unified soil
classification system)”, West Conshohocken,
PA.
16. Gade, V. K., Dave, T. N., Chauhan, V. B. and
Dasaka, S. M. (2013). “Portable traveling
pluviator to reconstitute specimens of
cohesionless soils.” Proceedings of Indian
Geotechnical conference-2013, IIT Roorkee,
India, T1-P27, 1-6.
17. Dayal, U., and Allen, J. H. (1975). “The effect
of penetration rate on the strength of remolded
clay and sand samples.” Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 12(3), 336-348.

View publication stats